State Of Maharashtra & Ors vs Dr. Shri Hari Shankar Vaidhya & Ors
- SCC(1997) 9 SCC 521
- Neutral1997 INSC 386
- AIRAIR 1997 SC 3069
- SCR[1997] 3 SCR 697
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a court has extended pension and gratuity benefits to teachers in certain aided educational institutions on the basis of a particular policy, and the same policy rationale applies equally to teachers in other aided educational institutions of a similar character, the court will not direct immediate extension of those benefits to all such teachers across the board, but will instead direct the executive to consider extension of the benefits in a phased manner, recognizing that the decision to extend such benefits is fundamentally a matter of executive policy and financial resource allocation, not a matter for judicial direction. The court will examine how an existing policy laid down by the executive is being worked out in practice, rather than taking responsibility for directing the government to initiate or expand a policy; however, where the government expresses willingness to extend benefits and acknowledges no intention to deny them to a particular segment, the court may direct consideration of such extension on a phased basis consistent with how benefits have been extended to similarly situated groups.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
O R D E R Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, made on June 14, 1996 in writ Petition No.3508/92 and writ Petition No.2645/90.
The admitted position is that respondents are the teachers working in Ayurvedic, Unani and Homeopathic private aided educational institutions. One of the questions which requires examination is: whether they are eligible for pension and gratuity scheme on par with state Government Civil servants under the Maharashtra state Government civil service (Pension) Rules, 1982 (for short, the 'Rules'). Admittedly, per se, the Rules do not apply to them. Pursuant to the recommendation made by UGC , the Government of Maharashtra by its Resolution dated may 26, 1981 have adopted the uniform pay-scales being paid to the non-teaching staff and teachers working in aided educational institution, i.e. Ayurvedic, Unani and Homeopathic colleges, BY another Resolution dated July 29, 1983, they extended the benefit to the non-Government organisation on par with the Government organisations. since the Government have not extended the benefit of pension and gratuity scheme, a writ petition was filed in the High court in that behalf. The High court has disposed it of in the impugned order. Thus, these appeals by special leave.
As regards the grant-in-aid, this is not in controversy and, therefore, we need not go into the question. The only question is: whether the respondents are entitled to the pension and gratuity on par with Government servants ? Shri Mohita, learned senior counsel appearing for the state, has contended that in view of the huge financial outlay, the Government has been, in a phased manner, extending the benefits from time to time and, therefore, the direction cannot be given to tide down the hands of the Government to extend all the benefits to all of them at a stretch. Shri D.A. Dave, learned senior counsel for the respondents, on the other hands, has contended that when the grant-in-aid and the pension were not being extended to the teachers working in the private law colleges, the High Court has given direction to extend the benefit which was affirmed by this court in state of Maharashtra V. Manubhai Pragaji Vashi & Ors. [(1995) 5 SCC 730]. Therefore, the same benefit may be extended to them. He also cited state of H.P.. v. H.P.. State Recognised & Aided Schools Managing Committees & ors. [(1995) 4 SCC 507] wherein this court has directed to extend grant-in-aid to the private educational institutions., middle-class and lower middle-class aided schools.
In view of the respective contentions, the only question that arises for consideration is: whether the High Court would be justified to grant the pension and gratuity scheme to the teachers working in the Ayurvedic, Unani and Homeopathic aided institution issued by this court, the pension and gratuity scheme were extended to the Law College from 1995. Whether the scheme could be extended or not is a question of an executive policy and the Court would not take the responsibility of directing the Government to extend the policy. Court requires examination as to extend the policy. Court requires examination as to how the policy laid down is being worked out . It is stated that since huge financial outlay is involved in extending the benefits and the Government is not intending to deny the benefit to the segment of the teachers, we appreciate the stand taken by the Government. The Government is, therefore, directed to consider extension of the benefit of pension and gratuity scheme to the teachers working in the Ayurvedic, Unani and Homeopathic aided educational institution in a phased manner, as was done with respected to the other aided institution.
The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free